The current debate on the divorce issue has seen a sprouting up of many pro-divorce correspondents, who while trying to look all nice and candy, seem to have quite a chip on their shoulder against the Church or any Catholic who dares express a contrary view. Reading Martin Scicluna’s letters such as that of November 16 gives one the impression that the anti-Church, anti-bishop, anti-Catholic basher-crusade dares anyone to express a contrary opinion to theirs.

Recently I was asked whether I could define the word “sophism” and to be certain looked up two dictionaries – (Oxford) a clever but false argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive; (Merriam Webster) an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially: such an argument used to deceive.

On September 7, Kenneth Zammit Tabona wrote giving the reason as to why the EU lobby omitted all references to Christianity in the defunct EU Constitution – I believe that unless our laws are irrevocably secularised, namely designed in such a way as to allow full freedom of worship for all EU citizens... This is why all references to Christianity were omitted from the defunct EU Constitution...

It is a known fact that the anti-Christian lobby refused outright to even consider the enormous contribution made by Christianity to our European civilisation. The sophism is in stating that the EU’s positive (?) refusal to make reference to our Christian heritage, was to ensure that all religions would be respected! Rubbish!

The new Iva lobby also seems to be proficient in the use of sophistry, taking this quote from The Times of November 16: Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio said divorce legislation would regulate the life of people whose marriage had irretrievably collapsed, insisting it was a law in favour of the family since people who separated would be able to regularise their new relationship. Using the words “in favour of the family” is nothing more than a sophism. It is a fact the main reason for broken marriages is adultery with the main victims being the betrayed spouse, the children and all society.

Is it morally correct to legislate in favour of those persons (the majorty of the ones with broken marriages) who break their promise of fidelity, cause an injustice to their spouse and abandon their responsibilities for the sake of their egoism? Children need the figurehead of the father and the mother who transmit moral values, a sense of discipline, a sense of duty, affection and love. Where do these issues come into the divorce equation?

Think well before embarking on a “crusade” against moral values, which equate to loss of the moral fibre of our society – whether or not one is a practicing Catholic.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.